|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 26 2024 22:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 21:26 Razyda wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless.
If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale.
If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet?
My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it.
We're at 40 000 deaths. 40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. Think he understands it better than you do. "Trolley problem" has problem in its name for a reason and it doesnt have solution (or rather solution depends on the person in charge of switch). It is somewhat bizarre that you would accuse MP of virtue signaling, while making grandiose statement about saving maximum number of people. You not saving maximum number of people, you actively killing a person. You not becoming a saviour, you becoming a killer. The person who tied a bunch of people down on the tracks is the killer. Again, really not sure you’re understanding it. The individual is airdropped into a situation they did not create. Within that situation they have two outcomes and are forced to decide between them. In outcome A one person dies. It outcome B a crowd of people die. The philosophical challenge is to decide which is the better outcome. In philosophical circles this is considered a difficult puzzle. Philosophy clearly still has a lot of work to go before it becomes a real subject.
Person A dies only in result your conscious action, this person would live if not for you. Whichever way you spin it, you are the one killing this person.
On August 26 2024 22:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 21:34 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless.
If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale.
If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet?
My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it.
We're at 40 000 deaths. 40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. It’s only the objective if one assumes some kind of utilitarian mode of ethics to start with. There isn’t an ‘objective’ in the problem. The whole genesis of the thought experiment in the first place is putting deontoglogical and utilitarian ethics in direct competition and to see how people choose. Really to simultaneously expose the problems in rigidly adhering to either school of thought Externalities are generally eliminated in the hypothetical to reduce it to a simple choice between two outcomes. The challenge is to decide whether it is better for one person to die or for many to die. Therefore the only real question is whether you want to maximize survivors or maximize casualties. I guess I could see an argument for choosing for it to hit the crowd if the person is a misanthrope but you’d have to make that argument. I default to the assumption that minimizing casualties is the objective but I’m open to hearing a maximalist argument.
Bolded: Thats the only real question?
Answer me that: do you think there was more Germans, or Jews, in Nazi Germany?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism/Nazi-anti-Semitism-and-the-Holocaust
"but the Nazis—who regarded Jews not only as members of a subhuman race but as a dangerous cancer that would destroy the German people"
"the elimination of the Jews was essential to the purification and even the salvation of the German people."
Seems like moustached dude at the switch made decision to "maximize survivors". While his reading of the situation was wrong, principles behind his decision were very much the same. Sacrifice few millions to save tens of millions.
|
United States42661 Posts
On August 26 2024 23:14 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 22:11 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 21:26 Razyda wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. Think he understands it better than you do. "Trolley problem" has problem in its name for a reason and it doesnt have solution (or rather solution depends on the person in charge of switch). It is somewhat bizarre that you would accuse MP of virtue signaling, while making grandiose statement about saving maximum number of people. You not saving maximum number of people, you actively killing a person. You not becoming a saviour, you becoming a killer. The person who tied a bunch of people down on the tracks is the killer. Again, really not sure you’re understanding it. The individual is airdropped into a situation they did not create. Within that situation they have two outcomes and are forced to decide between them. In outcome A one person dies. It outcome B a crowd of people die. The philosophical challenge is to decide which is the better outcome. In philosophical circles this is considered a difficult puzzle. Philosophy clearly still has a lot of work to go before it becomes a real subject. Person A dies only in result your conscious action, this person would live if not for you. Whichever way you spin it, you are the one killing this person. Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 22:16 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 21:34 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. It’s only the objective if one assumes some kind of utilitarian mode of ethics to start with. There isn’t an ‘objective’ in the problem. The whole genesis of the thought experiment in the first place is putting deontoglogical and utilitarian ethics in direct competition and to see how people choose. Really to simultaneously expose the problems in rigidly adhering to either school of thought Externalities are generally eliminated in the hypothetical to reduce it to a simple choice between two outcomes. The challenge is to decide whether it is better for one person to die or for many to die. Therefore the only real question is whether you want to maximize survivors or maximize casualties. I guess I could see an argument for choosing for it to hit the crowd if the person is a misanthrope but you’d have to make that argument. I default to the assumption that minimizing casualties is the objective but I’m open to hearing a maximalist argument. Bolded: Thats the only real question? Answer me that: do you think there was more Germans, or Jews, in Nazi Germany? https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism/Nazi-anti-Semitism-and-the-Holocaust"but the Nazis—who regarded Jews not only as members of a subhuman race but as a dangerous cancer that would destroy the German people" "the elimination of the Jews was essential to the purification and even the salvation of the German people." Seems like moustached dude at the switch made decision to "maximize survivors". While his reading of the situation was wrong, principles behind his decision were very much the same. Sacrifice few millions to save tens of millions.
I don’t know if I’d describe Hitler as a passive actor who was airdropped into a scenario he did not design or control and was asked to engage in harm minimization. You might be thinking of someone else?
|
On August 26 2024 22:58 KwarK wrote:
Came up with a fun one.
You’re out in your boat on the lake when you come across a sinking ferry. There are ten people drowning but you only have room for nine in your boat. You can start pulling people aboard but by doing so you’re implicitly choosing an order in which to rescue them which means you’re choosing who is going to be the tenth who drowns. Or you can refuse to choose who to pull aboard and watch as they all drown.
To me this is an extremely challenging puzzle because it’s really not clear what you should do. On the one hand you can save nine people with action but on the other you can save nobody through inaction.
Anyone who doesn't jump in the water is Hitler.
|
When people say they will pull the lever, I always present them with the fat man variant:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
|
On August 26 2024 22:11 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 21:54 KT_Elwood wrote:
The trolley problem is made up by people with too much time at their hands, and the pragmatic thing in medicine is "triage".
You save as many as possible, considering risk&reward strategy and with a bias towards lifes saved.
If it's not about life anymore, it's not a trolley problem.
E.g. Boeing.
If you make dubious claims about your systems and how pilots do not need additional training to master them.. and then you fail to provide a big red button that overrides a system that with a single point of failure can cause your plane to crash.. than that's no trolley problem but a business decision.
Save multiple billion dollars on developing and testing a new plane.. or use the 1960ties design with a non redundant AoA-Sensor for cheap to counter the longer plane and new engines... doesn't matter if some planes fall out of the sky..as long as the sales +savings on R&D outperform the legal costs by a huge margin Triage has nothing to do with the trolley problem. All of the patients have a train headed at them, they're all going to die. Doctors make a decision on who has priority for saving, not who they have to murder in order to save others. They don't murder anyone.
You need to think outside the trolley problem and semantics and only look at the results.
If it's a decision who gets to live, it's triage.
If it's about morale..or money it's not about life anymore.
|
United States42661 Posts
On August 26 2024 23:40 Laurens wrote:
When people say they will pull the lever, I always present them with the fat man variant:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
Ah, because technically there’s more human at stake with him. Pound for pound you save more human life by preserving him.
|
On August 26 2024 23:45 KT_Elwood wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 22:11 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 21:54 KT_Elwood wrote:
The trolley problem is made up by people with too much time at their hands, and the pragmatic thing in medicine is "triage".
You save as many as possible, considering risk&reward strategy and with a bias towards lifes saved.
If it's not about life anymore, it's not a trolley problem.
E.g. Boeing.
If you make dubious claims about your systems and how pilots do not need additional training to master them.. and then you fail to provide a big red button that overrides a system that with a single point of failure can cause your plane to crash.. than that's no trolley problem but a business decision.
Save multiple billion dollars on developing and testing a new plane.. or use the 1960ties design with a non redundant AoA-Sensor for cheap to counter the longer plane and new engines... doesn't matter if some planes fall out of the sky..as long as the sales +savings on R&D outperform the legal costs by a huge margin Triage has nothing to do with the trolley problem. All of the patients have a train headed at them, they're all going to die. Doctors make a decision on who has priority for saving, not who they have to murder in order to save others. They don't murder anyone. You need to think outside the trolley problem and semantics and only look at the results. If it's a decision who gets to live, it's triage. If it's about morale..or money it's not about life anymore.
Sure, if we disregard every detail that makes triage clearly distinct from the trolley problem, then it's literally exactly the same problem, sure. We just need to be very ignorant of those pesky little details.
|
Wtf are you guys talking about lmao
|
On August 26 2024 23:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 23:14 Razyda wrote:On August 26 2024 22:11 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 21:26 Razyda wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used.
The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. Think he understands it better than you do. "Trolley problem" has problem in its name for a reason and it doesnt have solution (or rather solution depends on the person in charge of switch). It is somewhat bizarre that you would accuse MP of virtue signaling, while making grandiose statement about saving maximum number of people. You not saving maximum number of people, you actively killing a person. You not becoming a saviour, you becoming a killer. The person who tied a bunch of people down on the tracks is the killer. Again, really not sure you’re understanding it. The individual is airdropped into a situation they did not create. Within that situation they have two outcomes and are forced to decide between them. In outcome A one person dies. It outcome B a crowd of people die. The philosophical challenge is to decide which is the better outcome. In philosophical circles this is considered a difficult puzzle. Philosophy clearly still has a lot of work to go before it becomes a real subject. Person A dies only in result your conscious action, this person would live if not for you. Whichever way you spin it, you are the one killing this person. On August 26 2024 22:16 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 21:34 WombaT wrote:On August 26 2024 20:05 KwarK wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used.
The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" 2. 2 is the number of people for which you should throw the switch to hit 1. Honestly I don't think you understood the trolley problem. The objective is to save the maximum number of people, not to virtue signal. There weren't even any observers in the hypothetical to applaud the individual for letting the trolley hit the crowd over the individual. It’s only the objective if one assumes some kind of utilitarian mode of ethics to start with. There isn’t an ‘objective’ in the problem. The whole genesis of the thought experiment in the first place is putting deontoglogical and utilitarian ethics in direct competition and to see how people choose. Really to simultaneously expose the problems in rigidly adhering to either school of thought Externalities are generally eliminated in the hypothetical to reduce it to a simple choice between two outcomes. The challenge is to decide whether it is better for one person to die or for many to die. Therefore the only real question is whether you want to maximize survivors or maximize casualties. I guess I could see an argument for choosing for it to hit the crowd if the person is a misanthrope but you’d have to make that argument. I default to the assumption that minimizing casualties is the objective but I’m open to hearing a maximalist argument. Bolded: Thats the only real question? Answer me that: do you think there was more Germans, or Jews, in Nazi Germany? https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism/Nazi-anti-Semitism-and-the-Holocaust"but the Nazis—who regarded Jews not only as members of a subhuman race but as a dangerous cancer that would destroy the German people" "the elimination of the Jews was essential to the purification and even the salvation of the German people." Seems like moustached dude at the switch made decision to "maximize survivors". While his reading of the situation was wrong, principles behind his decision were very much the same. Sacrifice few millions to save tens of millions. I don’t know if I’d describe Hitler as a passive actor who was airdropped into a scenario he did not design or control and was asked to engage in harm minimization. You might be thinking of someone else?
If he believed all this rubbish, argument can be made that he was.
Anyway point of the trolley exercise isnt saving people, it is to show you that killing can be not only justified, but actually good. You dont kill a person, you actually save people, be it from trolley, or weapons of mass destruction, or whatever. Idea is that someone else is responsible, you are just doing whats needs to be to done at no fault of your own.
Now lets do similar exercise without some shadowy forces:
You are a doctor and have 5 patients needing different transplants, as it happens there is perfectly healthy guy who is perfect match for all of them. Are you just chopping poor dude for spare parts without even asking him, because you know : "The objective is to save the maximum number of people"
|
If you transpose an unsolvable problem to a similar problem that's solvable.. you are basicly doing math.
If you want to keep dwelling on your unsolvable problem that's called wasting time.
Fat man variant:
How can you make the fat man move to his own death?
I purpose Snorlax variant:
You discover the fat man sleeping on the tracks, whilst the train cometh, will you wake him or will you expose the 5 people tied to the tracks to an early death? (again you can be sure that he will move away upon being awakened, and if not will stop the train)
Solution:
Triage: A seriously overweight person that could stop the train doesn't care for his health and maybe die from heart attack in a life threatening situation.. leaving you with a dead fat guy and 5 people run over by the train.
So you do nothing (maybe stressing the no-harm thing a bit.. but again not in scope of the problem)
|
I think the comparison to triage is not a great one. I'll go further and just say I don't care for all the wanking off over the trolley problem. The argument started on earth, now y'all are in space.
On August 27 2024 00:15 TentativePanda wrote:
Wtf are you guys talking about lmao
Someone will have to get back to you on that.
|
Yes the Trolley problem sucks, and thus you replace it with a difficult decision problem that actually has real world solutions.
|
On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 05:33 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
Israel would much rather the Palestinians just fuck off and go elsewhere and expand wholesale into the vacated areas.
Which, obviously is hardly a noble egalitarian pursuit, and one that many absolutely oppose including myself. But genocide it ain’t, for many people anyway.
In common parlance (rather than technical designations) the term has certain connotations to most folks. The Nazis weren’t merely content to shove the Jews next door, they’d have preferred if they just didn’t exist, and pursued policies broadly in alignment with that.
Which is the kind of association genpopTM make with the term genocide.
People hear the term ‘serial killer’ and their mind goes to some kind of Hannibal Lecter kind of cat. It’s the equivalent of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to convince someone that some bloke who killed 2 people in cold blood is a serial killer. Maybe it’s an argument you win, maybe not. Alternatively, one could zone in on the ‘killing 2 people in cold blood is bad’ part without trying to invoke a particular term, and it’s much harder to dispute that statement. The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless. If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale. If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet? My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it. We're at 40 000 deaths. 40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like.
Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me.
So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you.
|
On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 05:51 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
The example of a serial killer is actually pretty apt. Maybe not perfectly the same, but very useful nonetheless.
If you and I were to argue about this, and say I take the stance that two deaths make a serial killer and you argue that three or more deaths are required, we'd be arguing about a 33% difference. In my case the serial killer is two thirds there and your objection would be "yes, but what about the final third?" You might see why this doesn't exactly counter my argument in essence, it really only changes the question of scale.
If Israel had killed two hundred thousand Palestinians, would that amount to genocide? The answer according to law is: no. Are you surprised yet?
My answer is: by that point people would have to be out of their minds to keep denying it.
We're at 40 000 deaths. 40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you.
You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices.
|
On August 27 2024 04:28 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:03 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
40k / 2 million. Ok we are at 2% genocide assuming Palestinians in West Bank/Israel and abroad don’t count
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used. The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you. You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices.
Again you're just dodging the question because you know your absolutist position is insane.
Fine, 1 random person on one side and all 8 billion people on earth on the other. If you want, imagine it as an Armageddon situation. The meteor is coming for earth. The guy on the spaceship with the nuke can't get off the meteor in time. Do you remote detonate the nuke and kill the astronaut but save all life on earth or do you do nothing and allow the complete annihilation of our species?
|
On August 27 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 04:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 06:31 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
And 2% is far more than sufficient - purely number wise - to declare genocide. My point is that, if the number was 200 000, people would no longer be objecting to the accusation. So why are they objecting to 40 000 being genocide? It's a completely arbitrary line. There is not a meaningful difference in terms of how atrocious Israel's actions are, the only difference is the specificity of the term that's being used.
The people who are objecting to the term "genocide" are using very flimsy reasoning. Basically they're making a difference between mass murder and worse mass murder and arguing that one is "killing" and the other is "murder". It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different. When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.” Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you. You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices. Again you're just dodging the question because you know your absolutist position is insane. Fine, 1 random person on one side and all 8 billion people on earth on the other. If you want, imagine it as an Armageddon situation. The meteor is coming for earth. The guy on the spaceship with the nuke can't get off the meteor in time. Do you remote detonate the nuke and kill the astronaut but save all life on earth or do you do nothing and allow the complete annihilation of our species?
There's a reason the trolley problem uses 1 person vs 5 people, and not the entire human species. I'm not dodging anything, and you should look into the trolley problem more seriously. Philosophers are not generally idiots, they know what they're doing, and the trolley problem is famous for being one of the best hypotheticals ever conceived by the human mind.
|
Northern Ireland25260 Posts
On August 27 2024 04:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 27 2024 04:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different.
When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.”
Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you. You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices. Again you're just dodging the question because you know your absolutist position is insane. Fine, 1 random person on one side and all 8 billion people on earth on the other. If you want, imagine it as an Armageddon situation. The meteor is coming for earth. The guy on the spaceship with the nuke can't get off the meteor in time. Do you remote detonate the nuke and kill the astronaut but save all life on earth or do you do nothing and allow the complete annihilation of our species? There's a reason the trolley problem uses 1 person vs 5 people, and not the entire human species. I'm not dodging anything, and you should look into the trolley problem more seriously. Philosophers are not generally idiots, they know what they're doing, and the trolley problem is famous for being one of the best hypotheticals ever conceived by the human mind.
Aye, of thought experiments it’s definitely up there for me with Rawls’ Veil of Ignorance. Simple idea really, but it makes you think.
The good ones bring genuine conflict in various domains. Rawls’ rather elegantly makes one confront contemporary societal structures by bringing in the abstract hypothetical.
If one stacks the tracks, so to speak in the Trolley Problem, it misses the point of what the thought experiment is meant to do.
|
On August 27 2024 04:53 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 27 2024 04:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 06:54 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
It’s not completely arbitrary. There is a meaningful difference between killing 200k people and 40k people in terms of atrociousness. It’s approximately 160k dead people different.
When the term you’re defining is meant to mean the annihilation of a people then there does need to be some threshold crossed to use that term. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion then you can insist that 1 person being killed is a genocide. If someone says more than 1 person needs to be killed you can still insist they are drawing “completely arbitrary lines.”
Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it. Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you. You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices. Again you're just dodging the question because you know your absolutist position is insane. Fine, 1 random person on one side and all 8 billion people on earth on the other. If you want, imagine it as an Armageddon situation. The meteor is coming for earth. The guy on the spaceship with the nuke can't get off the meteor in time. Do you remote detonate the nuke and kill the astronaut but save all life on earth or do you do nothing and allow the complete annihilation of our species? There's a reason the trolley problem uses 1 person vs 5 people, and not the entire human species. I'm not dodging anything, and you should look into the trolley problem more seriously. Philosophers are not generally idiots, they know what they're doing, and the trolley problem is famous for being one of the best hypotheticals ever conceived by the human mind.
So we went from "Murder is never right" and "I have no limit" but as soon as you are pushed on that you start floundering around and asking to go back to 1 vs 5 (also a completely arbitrary amount). Perhaps you shouldn't make ridiculous virtue signaling proclamations if you start squirming when someone tries to pin you down on what you believe.
|
I find the trolley problem to be about subservient bystanders more than moral quandaries. Unless you are tied to the track with the switch, it's a simple issue of actors vs. watchers, deciders vs. followers, heroes vs. victims.
|
On August 27 2024 05:11 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2024 04:53 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 04:37 BlackJack wrote:On August 27 2024 04:28 Magic Powers wrote:On August 27 2024 03:31 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 20:38 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 20:25 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 19:40 Magic Powers wrote:On August 26 2024 10:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 26 2024 09:04 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
Genocide doesn't strictly mean the eradication of all of a people. The definition includes the eradication of some of a people. I thought you were aware of this, that's why I didn't bother to explain it.
Furthermore, I personally see literally no difference between the murder of 40 000 people and of 200 000 people. In fact I've previously made clear that in my book the murder of a single person is equivalent to the murder of a million people. Oh... well okay then. Not much I can say to that. A simple question: what is the minimum number of people that you would have to be saving in order for you to be willing to murder one? Only by asking yourself this question can you truly understand the trolley problem (from which I've drawn my conclusion). The more deeply you think about it, the more sense it'll make to you why I have no limit. Murder is never right and two wrongs never make a right. There are absolutely no exceptions to that rule. If you disagree with me, you'll have to make major concessions on the value of human life, because if you think murder is ever right then I can always ask you "what's with that arbitrary number of saved people? Why are you holding back?" Really there’s no number? So if every Jew on earth were on one side and Hitler was on the other you’d stand by and do nothing if the train was bound for the Jews? To answer your question: probably 1. If it were someone I liked on one side and someone I didn’t like on the other I might flip the switch. The trolley problem is about murder, not about self defense. Hitler was a real threat, not an innocent person. I didn't think I'd have to explain this, but now I'm pretty sure you've literally never thought about the trolley problem for more than a second. Your response is very enlightening though. For you, murder is ok if you save a person you like. Kind of a cop out. Arguing that running over an unwitting person with a trolley is a form of “self-defense” doesn’t sound very anti-murder to me. So let’s just change it.Instead of Hitler it’s just some random German dude on one side and every Jew on earth on the other. Your moral barometer supposedly dictates that you would stand by and watch as the Jews are wiped off the face of the earth instead of taking action that would cause the death of 1 person. Sure maybe you are more anti-murder than me but evidently I’m more anti-eradication of the Jews than you. You're just poisoning the well with the distinction between Germans and Jews. The trolley problem makes no distinction, you're supposed to view all of the involved people as complete strangers so you don't have any prejudices. Again you're just dodging the question because you know your absolutist position is insane. Fine, 1 random person on one side and all 8 billion people on earth on the other. If you want, imagine it as an Armageddon situation. The meteor is coming for earth. The guy on the spaceship with the nuke can't get off the meteor in time. Do you remote detonate the nuke and kill the astronaut but save all life on earth or do you do nothing and allow the complete annihilation of our species? There's a reason the trolley problem uses 1 person vs 5 people, and not the entire human species. I'm not dodging anything, and you should look into the trolley problem more seriously. Philosophers are not generally idiots, they know what they're doing, and the trolley problem is famous for being one of the best hypotheticals ever conceived by the human mind. So we went from "Murder is never right" and "I have no limit" but as soon as you are pushed on that you start floundering around and asking to go back to 1 vs 5 (also a completely arbitrary amount). Perhaps you shouldn't make ridiculous virtue signaling proclamations if you start squirming when someone tries to pin you down on what you believe.
You can bring any example to an absurd extreme and pretend you have created a gotcha. That doesn't mean you cornered me.
To illustrate this, you have seemingly overlooked Uldridge's point of view that committing genocide to save a loved one is justified.
On August 26 2024 20:55 Uldridge wrote:
I will gladly commit genocide to save 1 of my children and I don't need to rationalize jack shit for it. Give me a button right now, I dare you.
I don't know what your priorities are exactly, but it's not about questioning people's morality. Between Uldridge and myself, I doubt I'm the more obvious target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
